Department for Education

School Places

Mr Sam Gyimah: My Honourable friend, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) has today made the following Ministerial Statement.Today I am announcing £1.15 billion of capital funding for 2018-19 to support the creation of the new school places needed by September 2019.Ensuring that every child is able to attend a good or outstanding school in their local area is at the heart of the Government’s comprehensive programme of reform of the school system and vital for delivering educational excellence everywhere. We know that our growing population means that new school places are needed in many parts of the country and the Government is committed to providing capital investment to ensure every child has a place at school. The previous Government more than doubled funding for new places to £5 billion in the past Parliament. We are committed to investing £7 billion in this Parliament, and delivering 500 new schools. By May 2015, this investment had already helped to create nearly 600,000 additional school places since 2010, with 150,000 delivered in 2014/15 alone. Many more places are in the pipeline and still to come – with local authorities already having firm plans for 260,000 more places. This progress follows a decrease of 200,000 primary places between 2004 and 2010.Today we are announcing £1.15 billion of funding for local authorities in 2018-19. This is in addition to the £3.6 billion already announced for 2015-18, taking total investment through this Parliament to £4.8 billion. In doing so, we continue to recognise that good investment decisions require certainty. Announcing allocations for 2018-19 today means local authorities can plan years ahead with confidence, and make good strategic investment decisions to ensure they deliver good school places for every child who needs one.In making these allocations, the Government is continuing to target funding effectively, based on local needs, using data we have collected from local authorities about the capacity of schools and forecast pupil projections.Most local authorities are successfully delivering additional school places – as the nearly 600,000 new places created since 2010 clearly demonstrates. However, where authorities are not delivering for parents, we will not hesitate to intervene.Details of today’s announcement will be sent to local authorities and be published on the gov.uk website. Copies will be placed in the House Library. 


This statement has also been made in the House of Lords: 
HLWS611

Educational Excellence Everywhere

Nicky Morgan: Nothing better demonstrates this one nation Government’s commitment to social justice than our plans to transform the education our children receive. Since 2010, our education reforms, underpinned by the hard work of teachers and school leaders, have tackled the failures of the past and made a remarkable difference to education in this country. Record numbers of children, for example, are now taught in good or outstanding schools - 1.4 million more pupils than in 2010 [i]. A record 18% of new teachers who started training in 2015 have a first class degree [ii] and 81% of teachers and senior leaders say behaviour in their schools is good or very good [iii].However, the education we offer our children does not yet consistently compare well with education in other leading countries in the world. The excellence our reforms has unlocked in some parts of our schools system has not yet spread across the whole country. For example, 11 of the 16 English local authorities that have fewer than 60% of children attending good/outstanding schools, lower than national levels of GCSE attainment and where pupils make less than national levels of expected progress are in the North of England. Of the 173 failing secondary schools in the country, 130 are in the North and Midlands and 43 are in the South [iv].We need to extend and embed the last Parliament’s reforms so that all pupils and families can benefit, wherever they live and whatever their circumstances.Today I am publishing a White Paper which sets out our vision to achieve educational excellence everywhere, by providing a world class education to all children, regardless of where they live, or what their background is. The key elements of our approach are:an education system that ensures teachers get the respect they deserve and that we have consistently excellent teaching in our classrooms;support for existing leaders and help to develop the outstanding leaders of the future; an approach that allows great leaders to run more schools by removing the perverse incentives that prevent teachers from doing so;a dynamic school-led system where every school is an academy and where pupils, parents and communities are empowered to have a more significant voice in schools, and more schools working together in multi-academy trusts (MATs);preventing underperformance through support and autonomy, including transferring responsibility for school improvement from local authorities to those who know how to do this best: school leaders. There will also be a new focus on achieving excellence in areas where too few children have access to a good school and there are not yet enough high quality teachers, school and system leaders, governors and sponsors to turn them around;high expectations and a world-leading curriculum for all, so that all children receive an education that equips them with the knowledge and character traits necessary to succeed in 21st century Britain;fair, stretching accountability that focusses on tackling underperformance; rewarding schools on the basis of the progress their pupils make; and incentivising strong leaders to take over underperforming schools; andthe right resources in the right hands: investing every penny where it can do the most good – through new, fair, national funding formulae for schools, improved effectiveness of the pupil premium and making the best possible use of resources.We believe that the fastest and most sustainable way for schools to improve is for government to trust this country’s most effective education leaders on the front line, holding them to account for unapologetically high standards for every child, but letting them determine how to reach them. This system will respond to performance, extending the reach of the most successful leaders and acting promptly by intervening where performance is not good enough. It will also ensure they have the necessary tools to seize the opportunities provided by greater autonomy.Our approach will take our self-improving school-led system to the next level; building capacity and setting up schools to use their freedoms effectively, rather than just intervening in cases of failure. We are providing not just autonomy, but supported autonomy, as the best approach to improve education everywhere.The approach outlined in this ambitious White Paper represents our best chance of achieving the educational excellence that every child and young person deserves. The White Paper has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.[i] Ofsted Annual Report 2014/15: Educations and Skills: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ofsted-annual-report-201415-education-and-skills[ii] ITT census 2015/16: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/initial-teacher-training-trainee-number-census-2015-to-2016[iii] Teacher Voice Omnibus June 2015: (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/483275/DFE-RR493_Teacher_voice_omnibus_questions_for_DfE_-_June_2015.pdf)[iv] Ofsted Annual Report 2014/15: Educations and Skills: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ofsted-annual-report-201415-education-and-skills


This statement has also been made in the House of Lords: 
HLWS608

Cabinet Office

Electoral law

John Penrose: It is a long-standing feature of electoral law that if third parties wish to engage in campaigning at an election, then they should report their expenditure to ensure transparency, and that there should be spending limits on that expenditure to ensure a fair and level playing field and prevent undue influence. Part 2 of the Coalition Government’s Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 amended those limits to stop third parties engaging in ‘distorting’ activity during elections; updated the definition of controlled expenditure to include canvassing, events and rallies, as well as election literature; and regulated how spending was applied in individual Parliamentary constituencies. The Government continues to believe that the legislation is a necessary check and balance to ensure free and fair elections, and open and accountable campaigning at elections. The checks just ensure not just fairness for political parties' candidates, but also between rival third parties – especially on strongly contentious topics. At the 2015 general election, 68 organisations were registered with the Electoral Commission as third party campaigners. Organisations that spent money campaigning at the general election included the likes of trade unions, the National Union of Students, the Campaign for British Influence in Europe, 38 Degrees, London First and CND. As required by section 39 of the Act, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts was appointed last year to conduct a review of the operation of third party campaigning provisions, in relation to the 2015 general election. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has today laid Lord Hodgson’s report before Parliament. The Government is grateful to Lord Hodgson for his comprehensive and balanced report. We are pleased that he recognises the need for effective regulation of those campaigning at general elections to prevent undue influence and the need for transparency about who third party campaigners are and what they are spending. The package of recommendations proposes tightening some rules and relaxing others. For example, it suggests ending the exclusion for supporters (as opposed to members) of an organisation and requiring campaigners at an election to register with the Electoral Commission if they intend to spend more than £5,000 in any one constituency. It also recommends that campaigners should provide more detailed information about the political issues on which they are campaigning, which would be published by the Electoral Commission. Equally, it advocates clearer guidance by the Electoral Commission to address some misunderstandings about the actual provisions of the legislation. We will now carefully consider the package of proposals. Some involve changes to the existing regulatory regime, some changes to primary legislation and some are recommendations to the Electoral Commission.



Review of third party campaigning rules
(PDF Document, 665.57 KB)





This statement has also been made in the House of Lords: 
HLWS610

HM Treasury

Convergence Programme

Mr David Gauke: Article 121 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) requires the UK to send an annual Convergence Programme to the European Commission reporting upon its fiscal situation and policies. The UK’s Convergence Programme will be sent to the European Commission by 30 April. This deadline was set in accordance with the European Semester timetable for both Convergence and National Reform Programmes. The Government supports the European Semester which plays an important role in EU level cooperation on economic and fiscal policy.Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 requires that the content of the Convergence Programme must be drawn from an assessment of the UK’s economic and budgetary position which has been presented to Parliament by the government for its approval. This assessment is based on the Budget 2016 report and the most recent Office for Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook and it is this content, not the Convergence Programme itself, which requires the approval of the House for the purposes of the Act.Article 121, along with Article 126 of the TFEU, is the legal basis for the Stability and Growth Pact, which is the co-ordination mechanism for EU fiscal policies and requires Member States to avoid excessive government deficits. Although the UK participates in the Stability and Growth Pact, by virtue of its protocol to the treaty opting out of the euro, it is only required to "endeavour to avoid" excessive deficits. Unlike the euro area Member States, the UK is not subject to sanctions at any stage of the European Semester process.Subject to the progress of Parliamentary business, debates will be held on 23 March for both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, in order for both Houses to approve this assessment before the Convergence Programme is sent to the Commission. While the Convergence Programme itself is not subject to Parliamentary approval or amendment, I will deposit advanced copies of the document in the Libraries of both Houses tomorrow and copies will be available through the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office.The UK's Convergence Programme will be available electronically via HM Treasury’s website prior to it being sent to the European Commission.


This statement has also been made in the House of Lords: 
HLWS614

Department for Transport

Rail Reform

Mr Patrick McLoughlin: In July 2015 Nicola Shaw, the Chief Executive of HS1, was asked to provide options for the future shape and financing of Network Rail in order to support growth and investment. Her report, published this week, confirms that the rail network should be held as a national asset and a key public service. It builds on good progress already being made by Network Rail and focusses on steps to improve performance for passengers and freight users. I welcome the Report’s recommendations. The Shaw report proposes strengthening the role of Network Rail route managers to increase accountability and efficiency. It also recommends a new Northern Route, and a new Freight Route to ensure the rail freight industry can continue to contribute to growth. My recent consultation on the role of the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) showed clear support for strong independent regulation to put customer needs at the heart of rail. To support the ORR, I will work with it to implement changes to bring greater clarity to its statutory duties and to enhance its working relationship with Transport Focus. I will also update the Statutory Guidance I provide. The recent report by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) into competition in passenger rail services recommended open access operators could benefit passengers if important reforms are made. These reforms include fairer charges and robust protections for taxpayers and investment. While charges are for the ORR, I hope that changes to charges can be made as soon as possible. I will now explore options for potentially implementing the CMA’s recommendations, including legislation if required. I will make a fuller response to the Shaw Report later this year. I am placing a copy of the Shaw Report in the Library of the House.



Shaw Report
(PDF Document, 1.28 MB)





This statement has also been made in the House of Lords: 
HLWS609

Department for Communities and Local Government

Boosting Mobile Connectivity

Brandon Lewis: I wish to set out, along with my hon Friend the Minister of State for Culture and the Digital Economy (Ed Vaizey), how the Government will support digital connectivity to provide the opportunity for everyone to connect to the information superhighway and boost our economic prosperity.“Fixing the foundations: Creating a more prosperous nation” (Cm 9098) set out our commitment to support market investment and streamline legislation to make it easier to roll out the mobile infrastructure that this country needs.Views on how this could best be achieved were sought through the Call for Evidence: “Review of how the planning system in England can support the delivery of mobile connectivity” published on 10th July 2015. The review also sought evidence on the effectiveness of planning freedoms introduced in 2013.The Government is firmly committed to ensuring there is sufficient capacity to meet the growing demand for mobile connectivity. The majority of respondents recognised that digital connectivity is an essential service that communities and business want and need. There was support for the Government’s ambition to maximise coverage and for commercial investment.Importantly it has been recognised that there are opportunities to support mobile connectivity whilst ensuring local communities retain their role in influencing the visual impact of new infrastructure.This Government intends to bring forward provisions in England to provide greater freedoms and flexibilities for the deployment of mobile infrastructure. The changes outlined below are vital for our continued economic prosperity and social inclusion for all. They will help ensure that mobile operators have the confidence to invest in their network coverage and boost capacity for both voice and data.Where a site is already used for telecommunications infrastructure, we will extend permitted development rights to allow taller ground based masts to be built. The threshold for new ground based masts will increase from 15 metres to 25 metres in non-protected areas and a new permitted development right allowing new masts of up to 20 metres will be introduced in protected areas. To ensure that there is appropriate community engagement a prior approval will apply where a new mast is being built, meaning consideration will always be given to how to minimise the visual impact of masts.Operators will also be able to increase the height of existing masts to 20 metres in both non-protected and protected areas without prior approval; between 20 metres and 25 metres in non-protected areas with a prior approval; and have a new automatic right to upgrade the infrastructure on their masts in protected areas to align with existing rights in non-protected areas. There will be a height restriction of 20 metres on highways and residential areas to accommodate vehicle lines of sight and pedestrian access.In addition, we will lift restrictions on the number of antennae allowed on structures above 30 metres, while removing the prior approval requirement for individual antenna greater than 6 metres in height in non-protected areas and for 2 small cell antenna on residential premises in both non-protected and protected areas as the visual impact is limited.We will also grant rights so small cell antenna on residential and commercial premises can face highways, and increase from 6 to 18 months the right for operators to be able to install emergency moveable transmission equipment.To complement these changes, we will work with the industry and interested parties to strengthen the sector-owned Code of Practice to ensure best practice is always applied when it comes to the siting and design of mobile infrastructure.The Department for Culture, Media and Sport will be consulting key stakeholders for 6 weeks commencing 17 March on changes to the Electronic Communications Code (Conditions and Restrictions) Regulations 2003 to complement planning legislation. These changes will apply to the whole of the UK.The Code regulations deal with the operational aspects of the way in which telecoms operators exercise their permitted development rights and include requirements to consult with planning authorities. These requirements will be revised to ensure that there is consistency in how operators consult planning authorities where there is no prior approval.We intend that the planning changes will come into effect from summer 2016 and will apply to England only. The changes to the Code regulations will apply throughout the United Kingdom, as telecommunications is a reserved matter, and will also commence in summer 2016.   


This statement has also been made in the House of Lords: 
HLWS613

Home Office

Justice and Home Affairs post-Council statement

Mrs Theresa May: The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council took place on 10 and 11 March in Brussels. 10 March was the Interior day, which I attended on behalf of the UK. 11 March was the Justice Day, and my noble Friend Lord Faulks QC, Minister for Civil Justice, and my rt. hon Friend James Brokenshire MP, the Immigration Minister attended. The following items were discussed.The Interior day commenced with a discussion on Migration. The Presidency introduced this discussion with a review of the main principles agreed at the 7 March EU–Turkey Summit, the support needed for Greece, and the support required by others affected by the Eastern Mediterranean/Western Balkans route. The agreement made at the EU-Turkey Summit was broadly welcomed by Member States. A number of Member States challenged the decision to expedite the visa liberalisation process with Turkey. I noted that Turkey’s announcement on Monday committing to take back all new arrivals was a major development, and reiterated the need to work through the legal, policy and operational aspects of the arrangement to ensure it is implemented swiftly.The Commission welcomed the agreement of the new EU Humanitarian Aid Fund which was adopted at the 15 March General Affairs Council. The Council also heard progress on the increase to the Internal Security Fund (ISF) and the emergency assistance elements of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF). There was broad agreement from other Member States that further support should be given to Greece and that efforts on relocation should be accelerated. The Government does not support relocation as it is the wrong response to the migratory pressures the EU faces. It undermines the important principle that asylum should be claimed in the first safe country and does not address the causes of illegal migration. On the subject of migratory routes, concern was voiced by many over the shifting of migratory routes, to the Central Mediterranean route in particular.The Commission undertook to produce a progress report on relocation and resettlement, and confirmed that the visa liberalisation benchmarks would have to be met by Turkey and that all laws would be respected in returning migrants. The Presidency noted a readiness to examine the legality of returns to Turkey and to contribute further to EASO and Frontex. The Presidency confirmed that resettlement activities would remain voluntary but suggested that all should participate, and noted consensus on the need to control secondary movements and make returns more effective.The Presidency updated Ministers on the proposed European Border and Coast Guard Agency. The Presidency confirmed that they are on schedule to adopt a General Approach in April, and hope to reach an agreement with the European Parliament by June. The Commission hopes that the Agency will be operational by August. We are clear that the UK will not take part in the proposed Agency, but we support action by Schengen states to strengthen the external border.Discussion then turned to progress on negotiation of a revised Firearms Directive. There were five issues raised for discussion by the Presidency: a minimum age for the acquisition of firearms; a requirement for medical testing before obtaining a license; exemptions for museums and collectors; online sales; and which types of weapons to ban. I indicated UK support for options on the minimum age, medical tests, and museums issues which give Member States the greatest degree of national discretion. This was supported by a majority of Member States. On online sales, most Member States supported strict controls. However, the Presidency acknowledged that some Member States, including the UK, favoured processes that allowed for the verification of the buyer’s identity. The most contentious issue was the banning of semi-automatic weapons. I argued in favour of banning the most dangerous types of these weapons, and that experts needed to conclude work on what those weapons were swiftly. A majority of Member States opposed prohibition on the basis that there were legitimate uses of semi-automatic weapons, but indicated they were open to considering additional controls. The Presidency concluded that it would take work forward based on majority views.The Counter-Terrorism Coordinator updated Member States on the implementation of the November 2015 Council Conclusions on counter-terrorism. The Coordinator said that progress had been made, but barriers remain, and welcomed the Presidency’s intention to develop an Information Sharing Action Plan for discussion at the June JHA Council. The Coordinator stressed the importance of improving the use of Schengen Information System (SIS) II, allowing law enforcement access to relevant migration instruments, rapid implementation of the Passenger Name Record (PNR) Directive, development of national Passenger Information Units, using Europol systems to full effect and providing increased resources to the Europol Counter-Terrorism Centre.I then presented a Joint UK-France paper on Data and Information Sharing in support of the Presidency’s initiative. I supported the call to improve the use of SIS II and highlighted the absence of a requirement to record expulsion or removal decisions, the legislative gap preventing the UK from sharing and accessing such data with the Schengen area, and the limited use of fingerprint data in SIS II. I also pushed for progress on systemic, proactive sharing of criminal records data. The UK-France Paper drew strong support from the Commission, the Presidency, the Coordinator and other Member States. The Presidency concluded that efforts would continue towards the June JHA Council and that the UK-France Paper would form a key building block for its forthcoming action plan.To close the day, Germany and France presented a non-paper outlining a draft European initiative to prevent and combat organised domestic burglary. The proposed initiative will be debated in a future meeting of the Standing Committee on Internal Security (COSI).Justice Day began with the agreement of a General Approach on the Directive on minimum standards for terrorism offences. Member States declared broad support for the proposal during the discussion, but there was an appetite among many for greater ambition in some aspects. Several Member States argued for the criminalisation of travelling for terrorist purposes to be extended to intra-EU and EU-inward travel, to fit with the recently adopted PNR directive which includes intra-EU travel. However other Member States urged caution to ensure that criminal law was balanced with human rights and fundamental freedoms. The UK welcomed the new Directive but noted that we will not be opting in as the UK’s domestic legislation already meets the standards set out in the Directive. As the UK is already compliant with UN Security Council Resolution 2178 and the Additional Protocol to the Council of Europe Convention on Combating Terrorism, not opting in will not undermine our cooperation with other EU Member States in combating terrorism. The Presidency aims to adopt this measure in June.The Presidency then gave an update on the progress of two new proposals under the digital agenda covering harmonised consumer rights for digital content and distance sales of tangible goods, and noted that the proposal on digital content had been welcomed by Member States. However, many Member States had asked for more time before tackling the proposal on tangible goods in order to wait for the results of the Commission’s ongoing REFIT work on consumer protection. As such, the Presidency will first take forward work on digital content, with the aim of the Council agreeing a position on the key parts of the package at the June Council. The Commission agreed with the Presidency’s proposed approach, but stressed the importance of not losing sight of the proposal on tangible goods and confirmed that they anticipated the necessary data gathering exercise from the REFIT work being completed in the summer.On the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), the Council discussed the provisions of the draft EPPO Regulation concerning expenditure. Most Member States supported the position that the costs of investigative work should be met by Member States, with a small number arguing for EPPO to meet the costs. A third group suggested that this cost could be subsidised by the EPPO in exceptional cases where it is prohibitively high. The UK intervened to emphasise that while the UK does not participate in this measure, we support the shared objective with the EU to tackle this type of crime and welcome the acknowledgement that the EPPO Regulation would not impose obligations on Eurojust. Furthermore the UK underlined the need to avoid non-participating Member States financing EPPO, which was supported by other non-participating Member States. The Presidency indicated the issue would be brought back for discussion at a technical level.On the EU-US Umbrella Agreement, the Commission updated Ministers on two separate data exchange negotiations with the US. The law enforcement focused Umbrella Agreement and the exchange of data between commercial controllers under the proposed “Privacy Shield”. The Umbrella Agreement had been initialled, and with the signing of the Judicial Redress Act by President Obama at the end of February, the EU’s final requirement had been met. The Commission suggested that signatures to conclude the agreement could take place at the beginning of June. On the Privacy Shield agreement to replace the invalidated Safe Harbour decision, the Commission informed Ministers that the draft text had been published on 29 February and would now be considered by the group of EU data protection authorities (the Article 29 Working Party), before being submitted to Member States for agreement.Under Any Other Business, the Presidency reported back on the conference it hosted earlier in the week on jurisdiction in cyberspace. There were practical ideas to improve mutual legal assistance processes, a call for a clearer framework for relationships with the private sector distinguishing between different types of data, and discussions around the rule of law, proportionality and transparency in the context of loss of location. The Presidency will prepare conclusions for the June Justice and Home Affairs Council, to be considered first at expert level.The Commission then updated Ministers on the proposal for the EU to accede to the Istanbul Convention, which has already been signed by 25 Member States and ratified by 12.The Commission also provided an update on the dialogue with IT companies to tackle hate speech online. Following a meeting in early March concerning the type of content to be taken down and time targets, the Commission will facilitate further discussion with a view to bringing proposals for a public commitment or a code of conduct to June JHA Council.Over lunch, the Presidency facilitated a discussion on enhancing the criminal justice response to radicalisation, following the Conclusions of the Council and the Member States agreed in November 2015. Member States discussed the challenges in respect of managing the radicalisation threat in prisons in particular, including whether extremist prisoners should be segregated or dispersed, and considered the value of Member States sharing best practice.Ministers also held an exchange of views on two new proposals for enhanced cooperation on the Regulations on Matrimonial Properties and the Property Consequences of Registered Partnerships, following the failure to agree these proposals at the last December JHA Council. The UK had not opted in to either proposal. In the discussion, the UK argued for the removal of references to the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the operative clauses of the two proposals for reasons of best practice in legal drafting.

Statutory Inquiry: Anthony Grainger

Mrs Theresa May: I am announcing today the establishment by the Home Office of an inquiry, under the Inquiries Act 2005, to investigate the death of Anthony Grainger who was fatally shot by an armed officer of Greater Manchester police in March 2012.The Inquiry will be chaired by His Honour Judge Teague QC. In accordance with section 3(1) of the Act, I have decided that this inquiry be undertaken by Judge Teague alone as Chairman.Judge Teague is a circuit Judge who was nominated by the Lord Chief Justice to lead the investigation and inquest into Mr Grainger’s death. It has been necessary to convert the inquest to a statutory inquiry so as to permit all relevant evidence to be heard by the Judge. I have agreed with Judge Teague that the inquiry will have the same scope as the current inquest, which is being adjourned prior to the setting up of the inquiry.The Inquiry Terms of Reference are therefore:To ascertain when, where, how and in what circumstances Mr Anthony Grainger came by his death during a Greater Manchester Police operation, and then to make any such recommendations as may seem appropriate. In particular it will investigate:The objectives and planning of the operation;The information available to those who planned the operation, and the accuracy, reliability, interpretation, evaluation, transmission and dissemination of such information;The decision to deploy armed police officers and to make arrests, and the criteria applied in reaching those decisions;The command and control of the operation, its implementation, the actions of officers during the arrest phase, and the circumstances in which the officer who fired the fatal shot came to discharge his weapon;The suitability or otherwise of the firearms, ammunition and other munitions deployed in the operation;Any relevant firearms policies, protocols or manuals in force at the material time, together with any subsequent revisions or amendments;Whether (and, if so, to what extent) the judgment, reactions or operational effectiveness of any of the planners, commanders or firearms officers were compromised by extended hours of duty or by limitations in their professional capabilities;The extent to which Mr Grainger’s injuries would have incapacitated him whilst he remained conscious;Whether, after Mr Grainger was shot, his life could have been saved.The arrangements for the inquiry will now be a matter for Judge Teague. The Ministry of Justice and Home Office will provide support to him.


This statement has also been made in the House of Lords: 
HLWS612

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Ministerial Correction

Mr David Lidington: During the debate on the urgent question on the EU-Turkey Agreement on 9 March my reply to my Rt Hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) was not worded accurately (Official Report, col 282). I said, “The proportion of all refugees in Germany who get German citizenship is roughly 2.2%”. The correct response should have been, “The proportion of foreign nationals resident in Germany for at least ten years who get German citizenship is roughly 2.2%”.